1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jeffrey Merrihue <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 11:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Heroic Italian Parklets
EXTERNAL
The Parklet program has been a poison chalice.
When the program was announced ‐ we were faced with a daunting challenge to build something safe and attractive on a street over‐run by (empty Big Blue Buses). We spent $60,000 on the build out which was all of the funds we received from the government. For the 6 months that indoor dining was closed and outdoor dining was open it seemed like this was going to be a great benefit.
The day before Thanksgiving , a LA supervisor cast the deciding vote to shut down outdoor dining ‐ while she herself spent the last night eating outside at her favorite restaurant. This was catastrophic ‐ resulting in immediate sustained losses just when we spent all our money on outdoor structures sending us deep into debts that we never recovered from. It also led to an assault by code enforcement as we tried to let customers use the benches like self ‐ serve picnic benches. This was exactly what the Santa Monica pier was doing. We were harrassed relentlessly for months even after we closed the benches.
The current proposals to charge 10's of $$$ is simply absurd. We would ask the city to rip all our seating immediately although surely they will stick the restaurants with the removal cost as a final insulting blow.
Santa Monica is committed to big businesses like Target and CVS and major Union employers like Vons, Ralphs and hotels. The sustained multi‐year program to eliminate small family owned businesses in Santa Monica is well symbolized by this sadistic proposal.
Jeffrey from Heroic Italian
310 490 0202
Item 11.A
10/25/22
1 of 11 Item 11.A
10/25/22
Board Executives
Chair
Greg Morena
The Albright
Past Chair
Michael Ricks
Providence Saint John’s
Health Center
Treasurer
Len Lanzi
Stubbs, Alderton &
Markiles LLP
Vice Chair
Julia Ladd
Santa Monica
Place/Macerich
Vice Chair
Ellis O’Connor
MSD Hospitality/Fairmont
Miramar Hotel
Vice Chair
Becky Warren
Elevate Public Affairs
Board Members
Younes Atallah
Loews Santa Monica Beach
Hotel
Craig Babington
Morley Builders
Andrew Barrett-Weiss
GoodRX
Dom Bei
Santa Monica Firefighters
Local 1109
Jason Berkowitz
Arrow Up Training
Jasson Crockett
Snapchat
Kevin Delijani
Delphi Real Estate Group
Dr. Ben Drati
SMMUSD
Celia Fisher
Beach Moms Daycare
Rudy Flores
Santa Monica Police
Officers Association
Board Members, Cont.
Jeffrey Fritz
Fritz Buffone Group | Compass
Realty
Lisa Glasser
Oracle
Ann Hsing
Pasjoli
Kathy Irby
Commercial Bank of California
Jeff Jarow
PAR Commercial
Dr. Kathryn Jeffery
Santa Monica College
Kim Koury
Spin PR
Julien Laracine
Proper Hospitality
Paula Larmore
Harding Larmore Kutcher &
Kozal LLP
Charlie Lopez-Quintana
ETC Hotels
Jonathan McCowan
310 Tutors
Susan Neisloss
Big Bite Productions
Pam O’Connor
Janet Rimicci
UCLA Health
Laura Rosenbaum
CIT One West
Beth Schroeder
Raines Feldman
Jon Shoemaker
Gumbiner Savett, Inc.
Nat Trives
Coalition for Engaged
Education
Jerry L. Yu
Kaiser Permanente
October 25, 2022
City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Agenda Item 11.A – Santa Monica Permanent Parklet Program Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce we want to offer our thanks to the City for quickly implementing a temporary outdoor business program that proved to be a lifeline for many smaller businesses struggling to cope with unprecedented pandemic-era restrictions.
As the City transitions into a permanent program, many of our local restaurants are finding the wastewater fees a burden on top of several burdens, including back rent, loan payments, increased costs in supply chain, and extraordinary inflation.
Some have already taken their parklets or outdoor dining areas down rather than pay the fees, and others are considering doing the same. This risks the tremendous benefits of outdoor dining: expanded business for local restaurants, more tax revenue for the City, and livelier and more activated public spaces.
We respectfully ask that you consider these challenges facing our local restaurants and look for reasonable alternatives. Some suggestions from our member restaurants are: incremental fees that reflect restaurants hours of operation, reduced fees as permanent adjustment, or fees as an alternative cost structure on a business license.
We don’t want to miss out on the benefits of lively and activated public spaces that we all enjoy.
Thank you,
Judy Kruger Greg Morena
President/CEO 2022-23 Board Chair
Item 11.A
10/25/22
2 of 11 Item 11.A
10/25/22
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Anthony Mollica and Mark Mollica
La Vecchia Cucina, 2654 Main Street, Santa Monica
Re: Santa Monica Permanent Parklet Program
City Council Meeting: October 25, 2022
Agenda Item: 11.A
The response to the Parklet Program has been overwhelmingly positive.
We would like to give you additional information about the Parklet Program that is the purpose of this Agenda item.
1) Wastewater Fees (collected bi-monthly as sewer charges on the water bill and also collected as a one-time capital facility fee for properties that are either newly developed or redevelopment)
The wastewater fees that are collected bi-monthly as part of the water bill are pursuant to SMMC 7.04.540 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. The City Council adopted Resolution 11224 on January 28, 2020 increasing these wastewater rates by 10% beginning March 2020, another 10% beginning January 2021, another 10% beginning January 2022, another 10% beginning January 2023 and another 3% beginning January 2024. This is not of issue with the Parklet Program, but worth noting.
The one-time wastewater capital facility fee, which is of issue with the Parklet Program, is pursuant to SMMC 7.04.460 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
SMMC 7.04.460 is clear in that this fee applies to “the owner or developer of a building in the city.” (Emphasis added.) Parklets are not buildings and therefore would not apply. The other provision in SMMC 7.04.460 is “if the use of property subject to this Section is changed so that its sewage flow warrants the payment of a higher fee, as shown on the City Council resolution setting the Item 11.A
10/25/22
3 of 11 Item 11.A
10/25/22
fee, the owner or developer of the property shall pay an additional fee, as determined by the Utilities Manager.” (Emphasis added.) Presumably this is where the city believes the fee applies to parklets. However, our water usage has decreased by 20% in comparing the last twelve months (with a parklet) as compared to the comparable twelve months (without a parklet).
La Vecchia Cucina : Water Usage Analysis
Last 12 Months Comparable 12 Months
Water Usage Water Usage
(With Parklet) (Without Parklet)
10/11/22 – 92 HCF vs 10/09/19 – 107 HCF
08/10/22 – 89 HCF vs 08/08/19 – 106 HCF
06/10/22 – 96 HCF vs 06/10/19 – 116 HCF
04/11/22 – 100 HCF vs 04/09/19 – 130 HCF
02/08/22 – 82 HCF vs 02/07/19 – 110 HCF
12/09/21 – 86 HCF vs 12/10/18 – 112 HCF
As you can see, our water usage has decreased by 20%. We do not have an increase in water usage or sewage flow and therefore should not be subject to the additional capital facility fee.
The City Council adopted Resolution 11308 on November 24, 2020 increasing the wastewater capital facility fee to be effective March 1, 2021. This resolution increased the fee for full service restaurants from $292.00 per seat to $1,071.97 per seat, a 267% increase.
The Public Information Officer for the City of Santa Monica issued a press release dated November 24, 2020 titled “Council Sets New Water and Wastewater Capital Facility Fees.” This press release states “The new facility fees do not impact existing businesses, including those who have expanded their footprint to accommodate outdoor dining during the pandemic”.
Item 11.A
10/25/22
4 of 11 Item 11.A
10/25/22
It would not be appropriate for the city to pass a fee increase, say that the fee does not apply to existing parklets, then change it’s mind and say we lied and in fact it does apply.
We clearly feel the appropriate action would be for the City Council to waive this one-time capital facility fee for the parklet program for the reasons given above. However, if the City Council ultimately decides that this one-time capital facility fee does apply, then full service restaurants that installed their parklets prior to March 1, 2021 (the effective date of the increase) should only have to pay $292.00 per seat as the seats were added prior to when the increase took effect.
2) Parklet Size
If there is a “standard” parklet size of 2 or 3 parking spaces that is used for expedited permitting, there should also be a process to allow for larger parklets on a case-by-case basis, like other peer jurisdictions have done.
At the June 28, 2022 City Council meeting, staff included a PowerPoint presentation to the council. Staff said they did peer city research on four peer cities (Culver City, San Francisco, West Hollywood and Long Beach). Here is what we found online from three of these peer cities that allow for larger parklets (Long Beach did not have a parklet manual posted online):
Culver City: (Parking Design Guidelines for Outdoor Dining, dated 6/14/21)
adjacent parking spaces. Larger Parklets will be considered on a case-by-case basis for up to the length of a business frontage.” (Emphasis added.)
length of one, two, or three adjacent parking spaces including the required buffer areas. The City will consider larger Parklets depending on the existing site conditions, which requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” (Emphasis added.)
Item 11.A
10/25/22
5 of 11 Item 11.A
10/25/22
San Francisco: (Shared Spaces Manual, dated October 2022)
many merchants as possible have the opportunity to operate a parklet.
Exceptions may be considered on a case-by-case basis.” (Emphasis added.)
parking spaces, or 40 linear feet along the curb for parallel parking, or 20 linear feet along the curb for angled or perpendicular parking. Exceptions may be considered if all the other curbside functions are adequately accommodated on the block.” (Emphasis added.)
West Hollywood: (Parklet Design Guidelines Manual dated February 2018)
extends onto the sidewalk, it must not exceed the length equivalent to three on-street parking spaces. Larger parklets will be considered on a case-by-case basis.” (Emphasis added.)
Staff if saying that a two-parking space limitation eliminates, or greatly reduces, neighbor disputes, which frequently occurred during the temporary Pilot Program. The Pilot Program was quickly put together in response to covid closures which may have initiated some neighbor disputes. This is now 2022 and we are talking about the permanent parklet program. We have a great relationship with our neighbor. If our neighbor ever asked us to remove the portion of the parklet in front of their property, we would immediately do so.
The city can also add one line to the neighbor consent form for larger parklets that requires the parklet operator to remove the portion of the parklet in front of the neighbor’s property immediately with proper notice. This should not be of concern with this permanent program.
We feel the appropriate action would be for the City Council to allow for larger parklets on a case-by-case basis.
Item 11.A
10/25/22
6 of 11 Item 11.A
10/25/22
3) Canopies/Tents/Side Walls
Canopies and tents are not the same. Canopies have coverage from above, but no sides. Tents have solid side panels. We have chosen to install a canopy with our parklet due to the Ficus trees on Main Street in front of our restaurant.
The Ficus leaves are constantly dropping and the canopy is protection to our diners from getting leaves on their tables as the dine. The canopy is not for the rain. We have found that when it rains nobody wants to sit on the parklet regardless of the canopy.
We can understand for safety reasoning the need to see inside the parklets, which is why the parklet manual has a 42” max height for solid side walls.
However, Main Street has had a problem with the homeless population walking by our parklet and reaching in and the safety of our guests is very important to us. The parklet manual only allows for a 12” clear transparent plastic partition above the 42” max height wall, for a total of 60”. This does not help with the safety issue. For safety reasons, we installed lattice that you can see through and have found it has prevented many safety issues from happening.
We can understand if the city wants to discourage enclosed tents (with solid side panels). However, we believe the city should be supportive of canopies (no side panels) that serve a functional purpose in certain situations. Also, the ability to install lattice that you can see through to a max height of 7’, which is the current max allowable height of vertical posts.
Item 11.A
10/25/22
7 of 11 Item 11.A
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Kristin Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 4:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems; [email protected]
Cc: Michael King
Subject: Agenda Item 11.A - Water Grill & Pier Burger
Importance: High
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing on behalf of Water Grill and Pier Burger to express our concerns about the wastewater fees now being charged for every new seat for parklets/sidewalk dining.
Many restaurants are still struggling to recover from the pandemic. Many of us are paying back deferred rent and loans, and coping with supply chain issues, and extraordinary inflation in the cost of labor and goods.
Not only did our sidewalk dining allow for us to stay open and continue to operate our businesses during the pandemic, but it was also something our guests truly enjoyed as an addition to our restaurants. However, the cost of the parklet/sidewalk dining program for all restaurants involved is extremely prohibitive and it feels as though the City of Santa Monica is making it near impossible for restaurant operators to continue to use the program. As a company, we would be facing around $125,000‐$150,000 in wastewater fees for the new seats at Water Grill and Pier Burger (this does not take into account Meat On Ocean either), in addition to the monthly per square foot fees we would be required to pay to the City to continue using our sidewalk dining. We see a benefit to this program and understand there will be costs associated. However, these costs should be within reason and attainable for all restaurants in order to participate. The city has a tremendous opportunity to transform its dining scene for the better by emulating some aspects of the European dining model seen in cities such as Paris, Rome, Amsterdam, Barcelona, and Venice.
Outdoor dining has been a life saver for restaurants and great for cities to better activate the public space. We would hate to our streets become less lively and fun with the loss of parklets and sidewalk dining.
I respectfully ask you to look into any and all reasonable alternatives to help us continue utilizing our outdoor dining.
Thank you,
Kristin Anderson
Water Grill & Pier Burger
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Kristin Anderson
Real Estate & Development Manager
King's Seafood Company 3185 J Airway Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714.432.0400 x 207 To help
protect
your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download
of this
picture
from the
Internet.
To help
protect your
privacy,
Microsoft
Office
prevented
automatic
download
of this
picture from
the
Internet.
To help
protect your
privacy,
Microsoft
Office
prevented
automatic
download
of this
picture from
the
Internet.
To help
protect
your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download
of this
picture
from the
Internet.
Item 11.A
10/25/22
8 of 11 Item 11.A
10/25/22
October 24th, 2022
To: Santa Monica City Council
CC: David White
Dear Councilmembers,
Thank you for helping to make Santa Monica an outdoor dining hotspot over the past two years. It’s brought our city a lot of great press, which has attracted fabulous new restaurants, and increased local and regional tourism.
We should continue to do everything possible to retain, and increase outdoor dining, not make it harder and more expensive for operators to stay open. Much has already been said about the unpleasant surprise of exorbitant wastewater fees being levied on parklet operators. Yes, it makes sense for businesses to pay for what they use in terms of property and utilities.
Nobody disputes that.
What does not make sense is to charge current businesses any fee as a way to raise money for future infrastructure expenses. Those costs, if any, should be paid by the property owner, since they are essentially an entitlement that runs with the land. Many operators water usage has declined during the last two years, which is easy for The City to verify. If any fee is to be paid by the business it should be based solely on actual usage.
But I digress… Despite the questionable legality of these fees, and the unclear way they were communicated to the business community, we urge you to look at this from a ‘big-picture’ perspective: Why would Santa Monica do anything to reduce the number of parklets anywhere in The City? They have been a huge success and are universally supported by residents, businesses, and tourists. If anything, we need more Parklets. Sadly, if operating a parklet proves to be too expensive, or cumbersome then operators will simply have to get rid of them, which would be a tragedy for The City.
We implore you to eliminate the wastewater fees entirely AND allow parklets larger than 2 spaces to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Santa Monica is competing with neighboring cities for tourists, workers, and local foot traffic so it makes sense we would do as much as we can to draw businesses and customers here, not incentivize the to go elsewhere.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Hunter G. Hall
Executive Director
Main Street Business Improvement Association
314.323.4663
[email protected]
Item 11.A
10/25/22
9 of 11 Item 11.A
10/25/22
independenthospitality.org
[email protected]
[email protected]
Via Email 25 October 2022
To the Santa Monica City Council
Mayor Sue Himmelrich
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan
Councilmember Lana Negrete
Councilmember Gelam Davis
Councilmember Phil Brock
Councilmember Christine Parra
Councilmember Oscar De La Torre
Re: Agenda Item 11.A
Dear honorable Members of the City Council:
The Independent Hospitality Coalition (IHC) represents over 1,200 members comprised of local food service operators and employees within the Los Angeles area. We were created to provide a voice and representation for our workforce and essential businesses ingrained in the local economy of Los Angeles.
We are writing to provide comment on Agenda Item 11.A listed for today, October 25th meeting agenda, hearing an update on the Permanent Parklet and Outdoor Dining Transition. We are asking to please consider eliminating or finding reasonable alternatives to the wastewater fees being imposed on restaurants transitioning to a permanent program. We ask that more equitable solutions are investigated before these current $1,359.49 per seat wastewater fees are required of us.
It has become apparent in cities throughout California that Al Fresco programs have become an asset to communities.
They have provided several benefits to our neighborhoods consistent with a more walkable and local ecosystem friendly environment. They put more eyes on the streets increasing public safety for a safer walk home.
The program has been a huge success - not only helping hospitality businesses survive through the worst periods of the pandemic but also helping us recover our losses that have accumulated over the past two years. In addition, it has brought Main Street back to life. We see new businesses open every day and hear about many more to come. As a business owner, I understand the need to collect fees on these parklets. However, asking restaurants to pay $1,359.49 per seat for wastewater fees is extraneous and onerous. For a small restaurant that has 20 seats on an outdoor patio, that's almost $30K in wastewater permit fees alone.
Restaurants do not function with high margins. Our costs continue to rise each day. The price of something as simple as eggs has more than tripled since 2020. Healthcare costs have increased over 40% for us this year. We have struggled to not dramatically increase prices and as a result have taken a hit to our bottom line. If we were required to pay these fees, we would have to choose between operating our outdoor patio or increasing our prices dramatically.
Neither of these options would be a benefit to the neighborhood. We are so proud to be a part of the Santa Monica Main Street community and want to help continue to build Main Street, but these fees are really crushing to our businesses.
Please make decisions that will not force us to close their outdoor patios. We ask to work together with you on this issue to preserve the luster of what Main Street has become.
Sincerely,
Ann Hsing
[email protected]
908.229.0315.
Eddie Navarrette
[email protected]
213.545.2620.
Item 11.A
10/25/22
10 of 11 Item 11.A
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: CALIN SENCIAC <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 5:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Council Mailbox
Subject: 11.A. Santa Monica Permanent Parklet Program Recommended Action Staff recommends that the Council review the additional information City staff included in the staff report concerning wastewater fees, outdoor heaters, canopies, and parklet size under th...
EXTERNAL
From CALIN SENCIAC
Papille Gustative 2823 MAIN STREET Santa Monica CA 90405 Dear Council Members
We are writing you in hope of reconsidering the proposed waste water fee.
As you know, the last 2-3 years were particularly tough for our industry and our business.
We appreciate the initial help we received from the City of Santa Monica. Without that, most of us, in the restaurants and hospitality would long close and go out of business.
Understandably, this is not a one sided charitable act on City’s behalf but a well thought action of support and self help, where us, the businesses that sustain the city will survive and do our role in contributing to Santa Monica’s wealth and prosperous future.
We all thought the rough part is behind us by now and it is time to see the fruits of our struggle and hard work.
That is not the case: between the inflation, rising of material costs, labor, war and looming recession, our numbers are down even from previous year.
On top of that we will absorb all the adittional incoming costs:
-the cost of remodeling/changing the parklets, -submission fees, -parklet fees -electrical plans/ lighting -fire and patio heater fees -outdoor alcohol license -sidewalk dining fee After all this we will be, again, happy if we break even for the time being and, again, looking into better future times to make up our initial investment and then starting to make profit.
We are already sustains this for almost 3 years, we will be not able to do that any longer.
The waste water fee would be the proverbial nail in the coffin for us. Although it sounds like a good money making plan, it is not.
The back;ash and repercussions to the small businesses like us, the closings, the loss into tax revenues, the “for lease” signs popping up in former thriving neighborhoods will greatly outweigh the initial gain by passing this proposal.
Much appreciated
CALIN SENCIAC
Papille Gustative
Item 11.A
10/25/22
11 of 11 Item 11.A
10/25/22